Opinion
NO. 2019-KA-1014
07-01-2020
STATE of Louisiana v. Charles MONROE
Christopher A. Aberle, LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT, P.O. Box 8583, Mandeville, LA 70470-8583, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/DEFENDANT
Christopher A. Aberle, LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT, P.O. Box 8583, Mandeville, LA 70470-8583, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/DEFENDANT
(Court composed of Chief Judge James F. McKay, III, Judge Tiffany G. Chase, Judge Dale N. Atkins )
Judge, Tiffany G. Chase
ON REMAND FROM LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT
This matter is on remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020) (holding that jury verdicts in state felony trials must be unanimous). State v. Monroe , 2019-1014 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/19/20), 293 So.3d 60, writ granted , 2020-00335 (La. 6/3/20), ––– So.3d ––––, 2020 WL 3425106. For the reasons that follow, we vacate Charles Monroe's conviction and sentence and remand for further proceedings.
RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Charles Monroe (hereinafter "Mr. Monroe") was convicted of second-degree murder by a ten to two jury verdict. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. On appeal, this Court affirmed Mr. Monroe's conviction and sentence based on the contemporaneous controlling precedent. Monroe , 2019-1014, p. 3, 293 So.3d at 61. Mr. Monroe sought review by the Louisiana Supreme Court. During the pendency of his writ application, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Ramos . Thereafter, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted Mr. Monroe's writ application specifically regarding the issue of the non-unanimous jury verdict. Monroe , 2019-1014 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/19/20), 293 So.3d 60, writ granted , 2020-00335 (La. 6/3/20), ––– So.3d ––––, 2020 WL 3425106.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Monroe's sole assignment of error challenged the constitutionality of his conviction by non-unanimous jury verdict. Under Ramos , jury verdicts for felony convictions must be unanimous. Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020). Because Mr. Monroe's case was pending on direct review when Ramos was decided, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Ramos is applicable. See Schriro v. Summerlin , 542 U.S. 348, 351, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 2522, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004) (observing that "[w]hen a decision of [the United States Supreme Court] results in a ‘new rule,’ that rule applies to all criminal cases still pending on direct review"). Therefore, because Mr. Monroe's conviction was based on a non-unanimous jury verdict, his conviction and sentence are vacated.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Monroe's conviction and sentence for second-degree murder are vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.